• Juan Bagó, Jose Ma Climent, Francisco J S Pérez-Grueso, and Ferran Pellisé.
• Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Hospital Vall d'Hebron, Pº Vall d'Hebron 119, 08035 Barcelona, Spain. jbago@vhebron.net
• Eur Spine J. 2013 Mar 1; 22 Suppl 2 (Suppl 2): S195S202S195-202.

PurposeTo review and summarize the current knowledge regarding the outcome measures used to evaluate scoliosis surgery.MethodsLiterature review.ResultsOutcome instruments should be tested to ensure that they have adequate metric characteristics: content and construct validity, reliability, and responsiveness. In the evaluation of scoliosis, generic instruments to assess health-related quality of life (HRQL) have been used, such as the SF-36 questionnaire and the EuroQol5D instrument. Nonetheless, it is preferable to use disease-specific instruments for this purpose, such as the SRS-22 Patient Questionnaire and the quality of life profile for spinal deformities (QLPSD). More recently, these generic and disease-specific instruments have been complemented with the use of super-specific instruments; i.e., those assessing a single aspect of the condition or specific populations with the condition. The patients' perception of their trunk deformity and body image has received particular attention, and several instruments are available to evaluate these aspects, such as the Walter-Reed Visual Assessment Scale (WRVAS), the Spinal Appearance Questionnaire (SAQ), and the Trunk Appearance Perception Scale (TAPS). The impacts of brace use can also be measured with specific scales, including the Bad Sobernheim Stress Questionnaire (BSSQ) and the Brace Questionnaire (BrQ). The available instruments to evaluate the treatment for non-idiopathic scoliosis have not been sufficiently validated and analyzed.ConclusionsEvaluation of scoliosis treatment should include the patient's perspective, which can be obtained with the use of patient-reported outcome measures.

8 keywords...

hide…